Reading in Multiple Orthographies: Differences and Similarities in Reading in Spanish and English for English Learners

The current study unites multiple theories (i.e., the orthographic depth hypothesis and linguistic grain size theory, the simple view of reading, and the common underlying proficiency model) to explore differences in how 113 fourth‐grade Spanish‐speaking English learners (ELs) approached reading in...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Language learning 2015-09, Vol.65 (3), p.596-630
Hauptverfasser: Goodwin, Amanda P., August, Diane, Calderon, Margarita
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 630
container_issue 3
container_start_page 596
container_title Language learning
container_volume 65
creator Goodwin, Amanda P.
August, Diane
Calderon, Margarita
description The current study unites multiple theories (i.e., the orthographic depth hypothesis and linguistic grain size theory, the simple view of reading, and the common underlying proficiency model) to explore differences in how 113 fourth‐grade Spanish‐speaking English learners (ELs) approached reading in their native language of Spanish, which is transparent, compared to their second language of English, which is more opaque. Contributions of different linguistic grain sizes (i.e., small grains assessed via phonological decoding and large grains assessed via morphological awareness), mediators (i.e., word reading, listening comprehension, and oral vocabulary), and transfer were explored. The results suggest that morphological awareness and phonological decoding contributed to reading comprehension in Spanish whereas only morphological awareness contributed to reading comprehension in English. For mediators, listening comprehension played a larger role than word reading in supporting reading comprehension in Spanish and English, but oral vocabulary only contributed in Spanish. No significant role of cross‐language transfer was found. Theoretical and educational implications are discussed.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/lang.12127
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1735640422</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1069929</ericid><sourcerecordid>3758801041</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3947-9971ce83401c0186eb55651ea3eb73857f0489c06506244b5b801194da75c0c23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtv1DAUhS0EEkPbDXukSGxQpbR-O2FXtcPwSKcqBZWd5fHczLhknGBngP77Ok0ZoS56N77S-c7RlQ9Crwk-ImmOG-NXR4QSqp6hCeFS5WVJ6XM0wZiyvGCMvUSvYrzBaaiUE_T7K5il86vM-ex82_SuayC7CP26XQXTrR3E99mZq2sI4C3EzPhlduU2rjHB9UkdfP9FXHXGu7i-x6Z-1Qx73YbdXoEJHkLcRy9q00Q4eHj30PcP02-nH_PqYvbp9KTKLSv5cLwiFgrGMbGYFBIWQkhBwDBYKFYIVWNelBZLgSXlfCEWBSak5EujhMWWsj30bsztQvtrC7HXGxctNOmfoN1GTRQTkmNOB_TtI_Sm3QafrtNElkVZMMVVog5HyoY2xgC17oLbmHCrCdZDBXqoQN9XkOA3IwzB2R04_UywTLWUSSej_sc1cPtEkq5O5rN_mfnocbGHvzuPCT-1VEwJfT2f6ery_Lr6cTbXX9gdKXugZA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1698983747</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reading in Multiple Orthographies: Differences and Similarities in Reading in Spanish and English for English Learners</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Goodwin, Amanda P. ; August, Diane ; Calderon, Margarita</creator><creatorcontrib>Goodwin, Amanda P. ; August, Diane ; Calderon, Margarita</creatorcontrib><description>The current study unites multiple theories (i.e., the orthographic depth hypothesis and linguistic grain size theory, the simple view of reading, and the common underlying proficiency model) to explore differences in how 113 fourth‐grade Spanish‐speaking English learners (ELs) approached reading in their native language of Spanish, which is transparent, compared to their second language of English, which is more opaque. Contributions of different linguistic grain sizes (i.e., small grains assessed via phonological decoding and large grains assessed via morphological awareness), mediators (i.e., word reading, listening comprehension, and oral vocabulary), and transfer were explored. The results suggest that morphological awareness and phonological decoding contributed to reading comprehension in Spanish whereas only morphological awareness contributed to reading comprehension in English. For mediators, listening comprehension played a larger role than word reading in supporting reading comprehension in Spanish and English, but oral vocabulary only contributed in Spanish. No significant role of cross‐language transfer was found. Theoretical and educational implications are discussed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-8333</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-9922</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/lang.12127</identifier><identifier>CODEN: LNGLA5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Contrastive Linguistics ; Elementary School Students ; English ; English (Second Language) ; English as a second language ; English Language Learners ; English learners ; Grade 4 ; grain-size ; Interference (Language) ; Language Acquisition ; Language Proficiency ; Linguistic Theory ; Listening Comprehension ; Morphology ; Morphology (Languages) ; Native Language ; Oral Language ; Phonology ; Reading Comprehension ; Reading Processes ; Role ; Second Language Learning ; simple view ; Spanish ; Spanish language ; Spanish Speaking ; Transfer of Training ; Vocabulary Skills ; word reading</subject><ispartof>Language learning, 2015-09, Vol.65 (3), p.596-630</ispartof><rights>2015 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3947-9971ce83401c0186eb55651ea3eb73857f0489c06506244b5b801194da75c0c23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3947-9971ce83401c0186eb55651ea3eb73857f0489c06506244b5b801194da75c0c23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Flang.12127$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Flang.12127$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1069929$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Goodwin, Amanda P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>August, Diane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calderon, Margarita</creatorcontrib><title>Reading in Multiple Orthographies: Differences and Similarities in Reading in Spanish and English for English Learners</title><title>Language learning</title><addtitle>Language Learning</addtitle><description>The current study unites multiple theories (i.e., the orthographic depth hypothesis and linguistic grain size theory, the simple view of reading, and the common underlying proficiency model) to explore differences in how 113 fourth‐grade Spanish‐speaking English learners (ELs) approached reading in their native language of Spanish, which is transparent, compared to their second language of English, which is more opaque. Contributions of different linguistic grain sizes (i.e., small grains assessed via phonological decoding and large grains assessed via morphological awareness), mediators (i.e., word reading, listening comprehension, and oral vocabulary), and transfer were explored. The results suggest that morphological awareness and phonological decoding contributed to reading comprehension in Spanish whereas only morphological awareness contributed to reading comprehension in English. For mediators, listening comprehension played a larger role than word reading in supporting reading comprehension in Spanish and English, but oral vocabulary only contributed in Spanish. No significant role of cross‐language transfer was found. Theoretical and educational implications are discussed.</description><subject>Contrastive Linguistics</subject><subject>Elementary School Students</subject><subject>English</subject><subject>English (Second Language)</subject><subject>English as a second language</subject><subject>English Language Learners</subject><subject>English learners</subject><subject>Grade 4</subject><subject>grain-size</subject><subject>Interference (Language)</subject><subject>Language Acquisition</subject><subject>Language Proficiency</subject><subject>Linguistic Theory</subject><subject>Listening Comprehension</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>Morphology (Languages)</subject><subject>Native Language</subject><subject>Oral Language</subject><subject>Phonology</subject><subject>Reading Comprehension</subject><subject>Reading Processes</subject><subject>Role</subject><subject>Second Language Learning</subject><subject>simple view</subject><subject>Spanish</subject><subject>Spanish language</subject><subject>Spanish Speaking</subject><subject>Transfer of Training</subject><subject>Vocabulary Skills</subject><subject>word reading</subject><issn>0023-8333</issn><issn>1467-9922</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kUtv1DAUhS0EEkPbDXukSGxQpbR-O2FXtcPwSKcqBZWd5fHczLhknGBngP77Ok0ZoS56N77S-c7RlQ9Crwk-ImmOG-NXR4QSqp6hCeFS5WVJ6XM0wZiyvGCMvUSvYrzBaaiUE_T7K5il86vM-ex82_SuayC7CP26XQXTrR3E99mZq2sI4C3EzPhlduU2rjHB9UkdfP9FXHXGu7i-x6Z-1Qx73YbdXoEJHkLcRy9q00Q4eHj30PcP02-nH_PqYvbp9KTKLSv5cLwiFgrGMbGYFBIWQkhBwDBYKFYIVWNelBZLgSXlfCEWBSak5EujhMWWsj30bsztQvtrC7HXGxctNOmfoN1GTRQTkmNOB_TtI_Sm3QafrtNElkVZMMVVog5HyoY2xgC17oLbmHCrCdZDBXqoQN9XkOA3IwzB2R04_UywTLWUSSej_sc1cPtEkq5O5rN_mfnocbGHvzuPCT-1VEwJfT2f6ery_Lr6cTbXX9gdKXugZA</recordid><startdate>201509</startdate><enddate>201509</enddate><creator>Goodwin, Amanda P.</creator><creator>August, Diane</creator><creator>Calderon, Margarita</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201509</creationdate><title>Reading in Multiple Orthographies: Differences and Similarities in Reading in Spanish and English for English Learners</title><author>Goodwin, Amanda P. ; August, Diane ; Calderon, Margarita</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3947-9971ce83401c0186eb55651ea3eb73857f0489c06506244b5b801194da75c0c23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Contrastive Linguistics</topic><topic>Elementary School Students</topic><topic>English</topic><topic>English (Second Language)</topic><topic>English as a second language</topic><topic>English Language Learners</topic><topic>English learners</topic><topic>Grade 4</topic><topic>grain-size</topic><topic>Interference (Language)</topic><topic>Language Acquisition</topic><topic>Language Proficiency</topic><topic>Linguistic Theory</topic><topic>Listening Comprehension</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>Morphology (Languages)</topic><topic>Native Language</topic><topic>Oral Language</topic><topic>Phonology</topic><topic>Reading Comprehension</topic><topic>Reading Processes</topic><topic>Role</topic><topic>Second Language Learning</topic><topic>simple view</topic><topic>Spanish</topic><topic>Spanish language</topic><topic>Spanish Speaking</topic><topic>Transfer of Training</topic><topic>Vocabulary Skills</topic><topic>word reading</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Goodwin, Amanda P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>August, Diane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Calderon, Margarita</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Language learning</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Goodwin, Amanda P.</au><au>August, Diane</au><au>Calderon, Margarita</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1069929</ericid><atitle>Reading in Multiple Orthographies: Differences and Similarities in Reading in Spanish and English for English Learners</atitle><jtitle>Language learning</jtitle><addtitle>Language Learning</addtitle><date>2015-09</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>65</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>596</spage><epage>630</epage><pages>596-630</pages><issn>0023-8333</issn><eissn>1467-9922</eissn><coden>LNGLA5</coden><abstract>The current study unites multiple theories (i.e., the orthographic depth hypothesis and linguistic grain size theory, the simple view of reading, and the common underlying proficiency model) to explore differences in how 113 fourth‐grade Spanish‐speaking English learners (ELs) approached reading in their native language of Spanish, which is transparent, compared to their second language of English, which is more opaque. Contributions of different linguistic grain sizes (i.e., small grains assessed via phonological decoding and large grains assessed via morphological awareness), mediators (i.e., word reading, listening comprehension, and oral vocabulary), and transfer were explored. The results suggest that morphological awareness and phonological decoding contributed to reading comprehension in Spanish whereas only morphological awareness contributed to reading comprehension in English. For mediators, listening comprehension played a larger role than word reading in supporting reading comprehension in Spanish and English, but oral vocabulary only contributed in Spanish. No significant role of cross‐language transfer was found. Theoretical and educational implications are discussed.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/lang.12127</doi><tpages>35</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0023-8333
ispartof Language learning, 2015-09, Vol.65 (3), p.596-630
issn 0023-8333
1467-9922
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1735640422
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Contrastive Linguistics
Elementary School Students
English
English (Second Language)
English as a second language
English Language Learners
English learners
Grade 4
grain-size
Interference (Language)
Language Acquisition
Language Proficiency
Linguistic Theory
Listening Comprehension
Morphology
Morphology (Languages)
Native Language
Oral Language
Phonology
Reading Comprehension
Reading Processes
Role
Second Language Learning
simple view
Spanish
Spanish language
Spanish Speaking
Transfer of Training
Vocabulary Skills
word reading
title Reading in Multiple Orthographies: Differences and Similarities in Reading in Spanish and English for English Learners
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T16%3A05%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reading%20in%20Multiple%20Orthographies:%20Differences%20and%20Similarities%20in%20Reading%20in%20Spanish%20and%20English%20for%20English%20Learners&rft.jtitle=Language%20learning&rft.au=Goodwin,%20Amanda%20P.&rft.date=2015-09&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=596&rft.epage=630&rft.pages=596-630&rft.issn=0023-8333&rft.eissn=1467-9922&rft.coden=LNGLA5&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/lang.12127&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3758801041%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1698983747&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1069929&rfr_iscdi=true